dismissedAUG292023_01B52032023-08-29 · combined · Texas Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a human resources manager and attorney, proposed to start and manage her own human resources management consulting company in the United States.
Field: human resources management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“None of this evidence addresses our determination that her proposed human resources management business would not have broader implications in the field beyond its clients.”
“this evidence does not show how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor of starting and managing a human resources consulting business would have broader implications in this field, beyond that of the specific clients it would serve.”
“these letters focus on the Petitioner's previous activities as an attorney and an employer, issues which are appropriately considered under the second prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
“does not present new facts and does not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters focus on the Petitioner's previous activities as an attorney and an employer”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this evidence does not show how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor...would have broader implications in this field”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously submitted evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The Petitioner submitted Bureau of Labor Statistics data on workplace injuries/illnesses to argue national importance of occupational health and safety generally; AAO distinguished the general field importance from the specific proposed endeavor. Motion to reconsider was denied for failing to allege any incorrect application of law and instead reasserting factual arguments.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Matter of Coelho
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers